What I mean is that the 2nd amendment does not invalidate any and all gun control laws. Background checks are constitutionally valid.
a solid decision supported by both the Constitution and a long history of American jurisprudence giving the thumbs up to reasonable regulation and legislation in this area.
Of course, some will say these are INFRINGEMENTS - but it just goes to show you how ridiculous that argument is.
Most of the gang murders here in Chicago are committed with straw purchase weapons. They're bought legally and then knowingly sold to gang members for the sole purpose of murdering people. Much of the time gang members will accompany the card holders to Gun shops and point out which pieces they want. If I buy a gun for a criminal knowing that they are going to gun down others, I am complicit in those murders.
:lol: Surely your dissent will land a great blow to the court's credibility.When it comes to guns, the 2nd Amendment and S. Ct. rulings in regards to them, you can tell if the ruling was wrong simply by seeing who here agrees with it.
sorry no... "congress shall make no law"....... concerning the right to bear arms of the people
Right, it means what gun control laws there are should be few and far between, each law having to stand up to the Strict Scrutiny standard.What I mean is that the 2nd amendment does not invalidate any and all gun control laws.
Sorry no.... you have taken part of the 1st Amendment and attempted to graft it to the 2nd Amendment.
"We feel like you are dangerous so you will stay in jail past your term."
Laws don't work like that sooooo...
`A divided Supreme Court sided with gun control groups and the Obama administration Monday, ruling that the federal ban on "straw" purchases of guns can be enforced even if the ultimate buyer is legally allowed to own a gun.
Yes. Simply buying a gun is not probable cause to violate my 4th amendment right and perform a background check. Background checks at point-of-sale are unconstitutional.
Except they are not unconstitutional. The 4th Amendment has a phrase 'unreasonable searches' which gives the court leeway to decide what is and isn't reasonable depending on the type of search. Forcing local Law Enforcement to run back round checks was ruled unconstitutional in '97, now with the NICS it is a Federal system... not so much.
But if you have a court ruling saying point of sale back round checks are unconstitutional....
SORRY BUT YOU NEED TO READ THIS. The Preamble to The Bill of Rights Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine. THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [FEDERAL] powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. THE 2ND IS A RESTRICTIVE CLAUSE PLACED ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO MAKE NO LAW. James Madison- In pursuance of the wishes thus expressed, the first Congress that assembled under the Constitution proposed certain amendments, --->[BILL OF RIGHTS] which have since, by the necessary ratifications, been made a part of it; among which amendments is the article containing, among other prohibitions on the Congress, an express declaration that they should make no law abridging the freedom of the press. this is clear proof from James Madison that the bill of rights are prohibitions on the Congress.
I agree, since the intent of the law is to prevent a prohibited person from offering you, as a non-prohibited person, the cash to buy a gun for them; it was not intended to prevent the gifting (or sale) of a legally purchased gun to a non-prohibited person.
Please define 'prohibited person.'
I assume he means someone who would fail a background check if they had tried to a purchase a gun themselves.
Another poor decision of the SCOTUS.
Preventing the buying of a gift or buying for another LEGAL gun owner was never the intention of said law.
Please define 'prohibited person.'
The Gun Control Act (GCA) makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms. 18 USC 922(g). Transfers of firearms to any such prohibited persons are also unlawful. 18 USC 922(d).
These categories include any person:
Under indictment or information in any court for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
who is a fugitive from justice;
who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
who is an illegal alien;
who has been discharged from the military under dishonorable conditions;
who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or
who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (enacted by the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 104-208, effective September 30, 1996). 18 USC 922(g) and .
As you just said, probable cause is required to run the check. Simply buying an item which is generaly legal to own isn't probable cause that the buyer is committing a crime. This means the courts are as wrong as when they upheld slavory and said the right to vote doesn't apply to women.Except they are not unconstitutional. The 4th Amendment has a phrase 'unreasonable searches' which gives the court leeway to decide what is and isn't reasonable depending on the type of search. Forcing local Law Enforcement to run back round checks was ruled unconstitutional in '97, now with the NICS it is a Federal system... not so much.
But if you have a court ruling saying point of sale back round checks are unconstitutional....
No need to be sorry, but you are wrong- again...
I did read the Preamble, certain states did ask for a set of Rights be listed- (Madison was against this until the Anti's lead by Patrick Henry, among others, made a huge stink about refusing to ratify without more protections)
Sadly for you the Courts don't see it your way. The Preamble is a simple explanation of why 10 amendments are being offered after the fact. No where does the Preamble say "make no law". The 2nd A doesn't say "make no law'.
You are quoting Madison once more but again NOT one of his writings were ratified by the proper number of States on what the Constitution 'really' means and what the intent 'really' is.
You can attempt to spin it for as long as you wish, but until you become a Court of One with a higher position than the Supremes you are just one guy with a luger...eace